Com. v. Antill, C. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-S40029-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :                 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :                      PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant       :
    :
    v.                   :
    :
    CHRISTOPHER ANTILL,           :
    :
    Appellee        :                 No. 1450 EDA 2016
    Appeal from the Order April 15, 2016
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Criminal Division at No.: MC-51-CR-0043141-2014
    BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
    MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                                        FILED JULY 14, 2017
    In the instant matter, the Commonwealth appeals from the April 15,
    2016 Order, entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,
    granting     Christopher     Antill’s   Petition   for   Writ   of   Certiorari.   The
    Commonwealth argues that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
    erroneously reversed the Philadelphia Municipal Court’s denial of Antill’s
    Motion to Suppress the results of a warrantless blood test obtained following
    his DUI arrest.      After careful review, we remand for further proceedings
    consistent with this memorandum, including the entry of findings of fact and
    ____________________________________________
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S40029-17
    conclusions of law by the Municipal Court in accordance with Pa.R.Crim.P.
    581(I).
    On December 25, 2014, the Commonwealth filed a Criminal Complaint
    in the Philadelphia Municipal Court charging Antill with five counts of Driving
    Under the Influence (“DUI”).1         On September 30, 2015, Antill presented a
    Motion to Suppress in the Municipal Court, claiming that: (1) the police
    lacked probable cause to detain and arrest him for DUI, and (2) the police
    conducted a warrantless blood draw, which constituted an illegal search
    under Missouri v. McNeely, ___ U.S. ___, 
    133 S.Ct. 1552
     (2013), and
    Commonwealth v. Myers, 
    118 A.3d 1122
     (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal
    granted, 
    131 A.3d 480
     (Pa. 2016).
    The Commonwealth presented testimony from Philadelphia Police
    Officers Christian Chavez and Heriberto Velez; Appellant presented no
    evidence.     At the conclusion of the hearing, the Municipal Court denied
    Antill’s Motion to Suppress without entering findings of fact or conclusions of
    law. The court simply announced: “Motion denied. I stand recused.” N.T.
    Motion, 9/30/15, at 44.
    On November 18, 2015, Antill proceeded to trial before another
    Municipal Court judge, who found Antill guilty of all charges. On January 19,
    2016, the Municipal Court imposed an aggregate term of three days to six
    ____________________________________________
    1
    75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) (two counts); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c); 75 Pa.C.S. §
    3802(d)(2); and 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(3), respectively.
    -2-
    J-S40029-17
    months’ imprisonment with immediate parole, with a concurrent term of six
    months’ probation.
    On February 18, 2016, Antill filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the
    Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, arguing that the Municipal
    Court erroneously decided the Motion to Suppress. The Court of Common
    Pleas granted Antill’s Petition on April 15, 2016, concluding that the
    warrantless blood test was illegal under Myers, supra.              The Court of
    Common Pleas vacated Antill’s Judgment of Sentence, and reversed the
    Municipal Court’s ruling on the Motion to Suppress.
    On May 11, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a timely Notice of Appeal.2
    Both the Commonwealth and the Court of Common Pleas complied with
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925.3
    The Commonwealth presents one issue in this appeal:
    Did the lower court, sitting as an appellate court, err in reversing
    the denial of suppression of blood test evidence based on
    defendant’s lack of affirmative consent, notwithstanding his
    verbal consent and the implied consent statute?
    ____________________________________________
    2
    See Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (Commonwealth may appeal as of right from Order
    that does not end entire case where Commonwealth certifies in Notice of
    Appeal that Order will terminate or substantially handicap prosecution).
    Here, the Commonwealth included in its Notice of Appeal a certification that
    the April 15, 2016 Order, granting Antill’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
    “terminates or substantially handicaps the prosecution.” Commonwealth’s
    Notice of Appeal, 5/11/16. The Commonwealth simultaneously filed a
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Errors.
    3
    The suppression court did not file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion.
    -3-
    J-S40029-17
    Commonwealth’s Brief at 4.
    In pertinent part, Pa.R.Crim.P. 581 provides:
    Rule 581. Suppression of Evidence
    (A) The defendant’s attorney, or the defendant if unrepresented,
    may make a motion to the court to suppress any evidence
    alleged to have been obtained in violation of the defendant’s
    rights.
    *    *    *
    (H) The Commonwealth shall have the burden of going forward
    with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged
    evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights.
    The defendant may testify at such hearing, and if the defendant
    does testify, the defendant does not thereby waive the right to
    remain silent during trial.
    (I) At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge shall enter on the
    record a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law as
    to whether the evidence was obtained in violation of the
    defendant’s rights, or in violation of these rules or any statute,
    and shall make an order granting or denying the relief sought.
    Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(A), (H)-(I).
    When the Municipal Court (1) denies a Motion to Suppress, (2) finds
    the defendant guilty of a crime, and (3) imposes sentence, the defendant
    has the right either to request a trial de novo or to file a Petition for Writ of
    Certiorari   in   the   Court   of   Common    Pleas   of   Philadelphia   County.
    Pa.R.Crim.P. 1006(1)(a).        If the defendant files a Petition for Writ of
    Certiorari and challenges the denial of a Motion to Suppress, “the Court of
    Common Pleas of Philadelphia County sits as an appellate court and reviews
    -4-
    J-S40029-17
    the   record   of   the   suppression    hearing     in   the   Municipal   Court.”
    Commonwealth v. Neal, 
    151 A.3d 1068
    , 1070 (Pa. Super. 2016).
    “Importantly, when performing this appellate review, the Court of
    Common Pleas of Philadelphia County applies precisely the same standard
    that the Superior Court applies in appeals from Common Pleas Court orders
    denying motions to suppress.”      
    Id.
            This Court recently reiterated this
    standard as follows:
    [T]he [C]ourt of [C]ommon [P]leas is limited to determining
    whether the suppression court’s factual findings are supported
    by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from
    those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed
    before the suppression court, the [C]ourt of [C]ommon [P]leas
    may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so
    much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted
    when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the
    suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record,
    the [C]ourt of [C]ommon [P]leas is bound by those findings and
    may reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous.
    Where ... the appeal of the determination of the suppression
    court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court’s
    legal conclusions are not binding on the [C]ourt of [C]ommon
    [P]leas, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court
    properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of
    law of the court below are subject to plenary review.
    
    Id.
     at 1070-71 (citing Commonwealth v. Jones, 
    988 A.2d 649
    , 654 (Pa.
    2010)).   “The scope of review from a suppression ruling is limited to the
    evidentiary record created at the suppression hearing.”           Neal, supra at
    1071 (citing In re L.J., 
    79 A.3d 1073
    , 1087 (Pa. 2013)).
    In Neal, we concluded that the same remedy applies whether a Court
    of Common Pleas has denied a suppression motion without entering findings
    -5-
    J-S40029-17
    of fact and conclusions of law or whether the Municipal Court has denied a
    suppression motion without entering findings of fact and conclusions of law:
    the court performing appellate review must vacate the order denying
    suppression and remand with instructions for the suppression court to enter
    findings of fact and conclusions of law.         Neal, supra at 1071. This Court
    reasoned that there is no meaningful difference between this Court’s
    appellate review of a Court of Common Pleas order denying a suppression
    motion when compared to the Court of Common Pleas reviewing a Municipal
    Court’s denial of a suppression motion in the context of a Petition for Writ of
    Certiorari. Id. at 1070-71.
    Here, the Municipal Court failed to enter findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in accordance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I). The failure to do
    so poses a substantial impediment to our meaningful and effective appellate
    review.4 Accordingly, we must vacate and remand for further proceedings.
    ____________________________________________
    4
    We acknowledge that this Court may, in certain circumstances, conclude
    that a remand is unnecessary and apply an alternative standard of review.
    See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Astillero, 
    39 A.3d 353
    , 357 (Pa. Super.
    2012); Commonwealth v. Millner, 
    888 A.2d 680
    , 685 (Pa. 2005) (holding
    that “[w]hen the suppression court’s specific factual findings are
    unannounced, or there is a gap in the findings, the appellate court should
    consider only the evidence of the prevailing suppression party [] and the
    evidence of the other party [] that, when read in the context of the entire
    record, remains uncontradicted.”).     In this case, such a conclusion is
    unwarranted given the relevant facts in dispute and the issues presented on
    appeal.
    -6-
    J-S40029-17
    Consistent with our opinion in Neal, because the Municipal Court failed
    to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law into this record, we order the
    following:
    (1) The Court of Common Pleas’ Order granting Antill’s Petition for Writ
    of Certiorari is vacated;
    (2) This case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of
    Philadelphia County with instructions to remand the case to the Municipal
    Court and direct that court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law;
    and
    (3) Following the Municipal Court’s entry of findings of fact and
    conclusions of law, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County shall
    reconsider Antill’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari by reviewing the evidentiary
    record in accordance with the standards articulated in Jones and L.J., and
    reiterated in Neal.
    We relinquish jurisdiction.    See Neal, supra at 1071-72 (citing
    Landis, 89 A.3d at 704 n. 10 (“given our disposition of this appeal, we
    decline to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of the filing of a statement of
    the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the
    suppression issue”)).
    Order granting Antill’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari vacated.     Case
    remanded for proceedings consistent with this memorandum.           Jurisdiction
    relinquished.
    -7-
    J-S40029-17
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 7/14/2017
    -8-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Com. v. Antill, C. No. 1450 EDA 2016

Filed Date: 7/14/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/14/2017